If you read New Mexico Political Journal from a Facebook link, and appreciate the coverage of events, please “like” NMPJ on Facebook.

Intelligent Political Discourse - for the Thoughtful New Mexican

Warning: If you don't have an IQ of at least 110 (on any of several Standardized Intelligence Tests) please DO NOT enter this website. Synaptic and neurotransmission damage may occur. NMPJ isn't responsible for anyone not adhering to this disclaimer.

New Mexico's mercurial Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, has announced that she wants to address the “ugly truth” of racism, that she claims is embedded in core institutions.

So she says she is going to create something called a "Racial Justice Czar." This czar will supervise a "Racial Justice Council" and that panel will identify "potential policy changes." (Most people are probably left betting that those will be doozies.)

So who does Grisham turn to—to fix New Mexico's alleged "racial" problems? None other than perhaps the most famous racist in New Mexico—State Representative Sheryl Williams Stapleton (D-Albuquerque).

News reports indicated, "the council's make-up is still being finalized," but one thing for certain is that among its members will be the, apparently indispensable, House Majority Leader Sheryl Williams Stapleton, D-Albuquerque.

With the choice of Stapleton, it's pretty clear that Grisham herself is engaged in racial profiling. After all, she's certainly not choosing her because of her intellect or character, but only because she's black.

Stapleton and "The "Mexican on the Fourth Floor"

In late 2011, Representative Stapleton got really steamed at Republican State Rep. Nora Espinoza, R-Roswell, who questioned Stapleton's double-dipping. Stapleton was (and still is) being paid legislative per diem while in Santa Fe AND simultaneously being paid by Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) for working on exactly the same days.

APS has long been a famous bastion of flakiness on myriad levels, with its top-heavy administration, scores of extra staff, hired lobbyists, and public relations and media spokespersons ALL on the payroll for education.

So to compound things, under then-superintendent Winston Brooks, APS actually made it approved "policy" for Stapleton to double-dip. (And you wonder why people have chosen so many charter schools and private schools in Albuquerque?)

In any case, Stapleton flew into a rage and hollered at Espinoza at least three times for everyone to hear:

"You’re carrying the water for the Mexican on the Fourth Floor!"

Stapleton was referring to then-Governor Susana Martinez, who had acknowledged that her parents were Mexican-American.

Stapleton was widely criticized for the racist outburst, and the House Democrats subsequently deposed her as Majority Whip, replacing her with Albuquerque Representative Antonio Moe Maestas.

(Though it has to be said that the semi-tone-deaf Democrat Caucus allowed Stapleton to make a roaring comeback and installed her as Majority Whip once again in 2017.)

As a comical aside in the entire furor, both Stapleton and her then-sidekick, State Rep. Mimi Stewart both pled innocent to the very idea that angrily referring to Governor Martinez as "that Mexican on the fourth floor" was anything other than polite routine speech.

And both Stewart and Stapleton comically (though almost certainly insincerely) invoked what might be called the George Costanza* defense:

"Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time."

Stapleton at First Claimed She "Had no Idea" She had Made a Derogatory Comment

Stapleton's "Costanza" approach consisted of saying she "did not mean the remark in a derogatory way or as an ethnic slur." Going on to say "I would never say anything derogatory,” as she apologized "If I offended anyone." (Using the modern-day "apology" style of putting the burden on the offended, rather than having the offender (Stapleton) take responsibility.)

Stapleton then went the extra mile, so to speak, by making the bizarre, Elizabeth Warren-like claim, that she considers herself "at least partly Latina." [NOTE: She is actually from the US Virgin Islands and speaks a kind of broken Spanish, which she sometimes invokes as she insists on shrieking off-key renditions of birthday songs on the floor of the House, which both horrifies and victimizes her colleagues in both parties.]

Later, Stewart weighed in—speaking as someone who was also simultaneously in a teaching position while attending legislative sessions. Stewart, who is from Massachusetts, said she "did not think Stapleton meant the remark about the governor to be an ethnic slur."

Both Stewart and Stapleton are said to be huge fans of George Costanza.

But later, Stapleton admitted she was lying when she had previously claimed that she had no idea she had said anything in an offensive way. Admitting, as her voice began to break:

"I lost it, ladies and gentlemen. I expect more of myself. This is not my character."

As Stapleton's remarks were reverberating throughout this Hispanic-plurality state, she followed up with a more thorough apology:

“I am publicly making an apology to the governor of the state of New Mexico, I am publicly making an apology to my district and I am publicly making an apology to the people of New Mexico as an elected official."

This, of course, left her buddy Mimi Stewart alone by herself, twisting slowly in the wind, in the embarrassing position of continuing to own the obviously false claim (as long as Stapleton claimed it) that there was no offense at all, all in good fun, nothing to see here.

Stewart was not warned by Stapleton that she was about to leave her alone, claiming the ridiculous.

Grisham Obviously Used Racial Profiling in Selecting Stapleton

Stapleton made the excuse that "I was under extreme stress."

Well, maybe so. But this raises the question: Can the governor find no one else in the entire state for this expert panel who does not fold under pressure and stress and whose first instincts when excited or stressed is to blurt out ethnic or racial slurs?

After all, this panel of authorities will be charged with defining, finding, identifying, and rooting out racism. It appears that Grisham is using the lamest approach, effectively telling New Mexicans: "I chose Sheryl because it takes one to know one."

And of course, all of this begs the embarrassing question: Just how many black leaders does the governor know? Apparently, very, very few. Almost none. A few political cronies. No one else. For panels like this, shouldn't she be looking for leaders? People of unimpeachable character? The right stuff?

And the Governor's answer to all these questions is Stapleton?

All this while the governor goes on to intone:

"We have a tendency to wrap ourselves in that particular cloak and pretend sometimes that we don’t have the kind of inequalities, institutional racism and hatred that exists.”

“We have institutional racism embedded in every construct in American society. The fact you might not see it every day means you’re not looking for it every day. It exists.”

We can argue about whether any of that is true or not (neither the governor nor anyone else gave any examples for New Mexico) but just saying those things with a straight face, while simultaneously deciding that Stapleton is the judge and jury on these questions is nothing short of bizarre.

What this means is that Grisham used the most barefaced and obvious racial profiling, completely ignoring character, intellect, and articulation of issues, and shamelessly choosing based on race alone. The very thing she claims to oppose.

2009 Bill Prohibition of Profiling Act

New Mexico already has a 2009 law that allegedly bans "racial profiling." This bill purported to prohibit the used of certain information in the identification of criminal suspects based on descriptions that might include race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, physical or mental disability or serious medical condition

That bill passed the New Mexico House of Representatives, without a whimper, by a vote of 62-0. But when it arrived in the State Senate, its sponsors faced some questions from senators, including then-Senator Rod Adair (R-Roswell):

Is it racial profiling to identify suspects or subjects of investigations based on testimony from witnesses or cameras, which might include descriptions of skin color, or guessed ethnicity, or gender, or if someone might have been on crutches, or had spoken a foreign language?

The sponsors couldn't answer.

Are there any data or studies of any kind to show that new Mexico law enforcement are engaged in racial profiling?

The sponsors had neither.

What if a Hispanic state police officer from Albuquerque tells a Hispanic deputy sheriff in Deming that he believes a suspect is Hispanic, female, about 5' 4" tall, 125 lbs, and that she had black/brown hair and brown eyes? Is that profiling?

Confused answers. Much debate and arguing ensued.

Are we just copying some things being done in other states right now, especially back East?

Sponsors admitted that other states were passing similar bills.

The bill ended up passing the Senate, 32-10. In addition to having Adair vote "No," others voting No included Vernon Asbill of Carlsbad, Sue Wilson Beffort, Mark Boitano, Kent Cravens, William Payne, and John Ryan, all from Albuquerque, Dianna Duran from Tularosa, Stuart Ingle of Portales, and William Sharer of Farmington.

The remaining five Republicans joined 27 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill.

Grisham expressed regret this past week for having taken an aggressive approach to combating violent crime, particularly when she decided to send 50 State Police officers to patrol certain areas of Albuquerque last year.

The two-month “Metro Surge Operation” cost about $1 million. It resulted in 14,674 traffic stops and netted 738 arrests—the majority of which were for felony or misdemeanor warrants. The governor said Thursday that such decisions would be viewed through a different lens going forward.

“It is a public health emergency and New Mexico will treat it as such,” Lujan Grisham said.

But the data don't support all this regret and Nationwide Angst

Statistics compiled by Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute reveal the following:

In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015.

That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects.

In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. (It must be noted that the Post defines “unarmed” broadly and loosely, counting as "unarmed" a suspect in Newark, NJ, who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase.)

In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019.

By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

On Memorial Day weekend in Chicago alone, 10 African-Americans were killed in drive-by shootings.

Such routine violence has continued—a 72-year-old black Chicago man shot in the face on May 29 by a gunman who fired about a dozen shots into a residence

Two black 19-year-old women on the South Side shot to death as they sat in a parked car a few hours earlier

A black 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed with his own knife that same day.

Police shootings are not the reason that blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined; criminal violence is.

MacDonald went on to note:

The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer.

There is “no significant evidence of anti-black disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded.

A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.

The false narrative of systemic police bias resulted in targeted killings of officers during the Obama presidency. The pattern may be repeating itself. Officers are being assaulted and shot at while they try to arrest gun suspects or respond to the growing riots.

Police precincts and courthouses have been destroyed with impunity, which will encourage more civilization-destroying violence. If the Ferguson effect of officers backing off law enforcement in minority neighborhoods is reborn as the Minneapolis effect, the thousands of law-abiding African-Americans who depend on the police for basic safety will once again be the victims.

The Minneapolis officers who arrested George Floyd must be held accountable for their excessive use of force and callous indifference to his distress. Police training needs to double down on de-escalation tactics. But Floyd’s death should not undermine the legitimacy of American law enforcement, without which we will continue on a path toward chaos.

*Costanza is a character on TV's Seinfeld. He used this "defense" while in the process of being fired by his boss for having had sexual intercourse with the cleaning woman on the desk in his office.

A guest editorial by the Editor Emeritus, former State Senator Rod Adair

As I survey the unanimous opinion of the American people, I once again find myself, apparently, all alone. Everyone else apparently agrees that Brees' views of the now four-year-old "Kaepernick incident" were "racist" or somehow "wrong." Yet here I am reading Brees' words, and finding them, at the very worst innocuous, and at best actually commendable and accurate.

However, the state of our nation is such today, that an absurdly opinionated and extremely aggressive "news" media, accompanied by a range of athletes, celebrities, and virtue-signaling commentators, can absolutely bully the living hell out of anyone into submission. To cave in—to the designated, required point of view. There is an element of social and rhetorical fascism in all of this: Conform—or we will destroy you. The fact that this mob mentality-driven "thought coercion" scares no one, scares me to some extent.

EVEN INTELLIGENT AMERICANS HAVE FALLEN FOR THIS

(Almost certainly due to unconscious pressures to signal virtue.)

It is lost on everyone that those who argue (somewhat ignorantly) that Kaepernickism is "free speech" (like, who on earth doesn't know that already?) completely ignore the obvious fact that Drew Brees has the same right. (But it isn't a matter of "free speech" at all—everyone knows everyone has that right.)

Lost (on even intelligent Americans) is that we are moving into forced beliefs—viewpoints and opinions with which you MUST agree, or else. How can people not see the danger in this?

So all of this leaves me feeling like the guy in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Except I'm not surrounded alien creatures from outer space, but by fellow Americans who have no concept, or do perhaps have an alien concept, of what our nation is about. I'm surrounded by mindless conforming, cowed, forced virtue-signallers everywhere. Most aren't even reflective enough to think about what they are conforming to. It is very discouraging.

NEWS FLASH: Kaepernick did NOT do something 3½ years ago which was somehow "profound" or "thought-provoking" or somehow "deep" and "moving." And he didn't do anything inspired by deep feelings about civil rights, or black lives.

Here's what he did:

He sat down during a civic ritual—the National Anthem

He had never done this BEFORE he was benched and not playing, and becoming very unhappy as a 49er. Never.

True, he said it was for deep "civil rights" convictions/beliefs

Again, he had never uttered such things before

He's gone on to object to the flag because he says it represents "slavery" (this is also a recent discovery on his part)

Millions of Americans swooned. Oh my gosh, let's interrupt all ball games or ceremonies so that "Black Lives Matter" can have their two minutes of hate. Riots, looting, assault, are not enough. We must invade and take over public rituals.

How stupid are the American people? How conforming are they becoming? How gullible are they?

IF It's MERELY A CIVIC RITUAL that MEANS NOTHING? LET'S GET RID of IT.

The National Anthem is only 89 years old. It's not like George Washingon invented it or anything (and if he had, the Kaepernick-influenced Americans would tell us to junk it because GW had slaves). The Pledge of Allegiance is only 78 years old.

These are only two of a number of events that are essentially merely rituals that—for whatever reason—many Americans feel are important. It is absurd to present the idea that the National Anthem authoritatively asserts, forthrightly states, gingerly signals, or even somehow remotely implies that the United States of America has achieved perfection or nirvana in our public policy or social interaction.

The notion that we must kneel rather than stand and salute because we aren't perfect is a ridiculous idea. But it is a measure of our massive national ignorance that this concept is embraced.

These ceremonies aren't "required" and we don't have to have them. And if most Americans who have made a profession of faith in the new religion called Kaepernickism believe those moments of civic unity should be invaded and co-opted every time they are observed, so that individuals—whether disgruntled athletes, or anyone else with a personal grievance—can make a self-centered show of "what's-in-this-event-for me," then we really do need to scrap all of these events.

If the majority of Americans believe, like Kaepernick and his millions of fans—that he has a point: That NO ONE should stand until all injustice is erased from the continent, then we must get rid of these civic rituals. Entirely. This is because our civic ceremonies—rituals that are supposed to unite our people behind the American Experiment, which is a quest for the very best we can achieve—will never ever be affirmations of perfection.

Yes, there will always be some injustice somewhere. And if Kaepernicksim is truly a public good, and is right in its cause, and is correct in its invocation, then we should do Kaepernickism every single time we get together

If it is right, and good, and correct, we shouldn't just do it for one person, or for one person's personal grievances. We have to commit our nation to interrupt or deface or defile every single ritual. Otherwise, we aren't being consistent. We are recognizing only some grievances but not all, and that would not be "fair."

If it is right and good and correct, it should be promoted and carried on in every Middlesex village and farm.

Can the President use the Army to enforce the law and to quell riot and violence, and to protect lives and property?

Answer: YES. This is not even remotely debatable. (The Democrats and media are lying about this.)

Do the Democrats have a history of disobeying the law and of either encouraging lawlessness and riot, or praising it when it happens?

Answer. YES. Not only do they have that record, it is a long, ugly, and infamous record—which history will never erase—to the permanent, indelible shame of the Democrat Party.

It's Not Just About History—they Still do it Today—Though it is Also about Their History

It is not just a case of the Democrats’ notorious invention of and embrace of and support of and use of the Ku Klux Klan in the period from 1865 to 1925, though all of that shame belongs to that party. Forever.

It goes well beyond that. Even in my lifetime, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower had to call in the United States Army to protect life and property and the lives of little black children who were being threatened by a Democrat governor in Arkansas.

Similar use of military force had to be applied to Democrat governors repeatedly throughout the 1960s.

The Democrats have never really abandoned these approaches to picking and choosing who will be protected and who will not. Just in the last couple of years, several Democrat mayors—most infamously perhaps????, the mayor of Portland, Oregon—ordered police not to protect Republican or conservative demonstrators who were were being beaten senseless by Democrat, Antifa, and BLM rioters, and thugs.

Trump has enormous numbers of flaws including inarticulateness. We cannot dispute that. However the Democrats have greater flaws in their selective application of the law and the refusal to have everyone enjoy the equal protection of the law.

If you stop and think about it, the selective enforcement of the law—which is what the Democrats advocate—is something which thoroughly undermines our entire system of government. It is vastly more dangerous than anything Trump has ever said or done. There is no comparison.?

The Democrats have never embraced the 14th amendment, which they unanimously opposed in 1868, and which they still oppose today.

The three-way Republican US Senate primary promises to be an interesting race to watch Tuesday night. Supporters of Gavin Clarkson and Elisa Martinez are claiming that the race is very tight and say it will provide the surprise of the night.

We don’t necessarily agree with that analysis, but we can't help but notice that there have been developments worth reporting.

In early April, Mark Ronchetti released a survey, which we wrote about, that showed him with a strong lead over the other candidates. However, on April 27th, a video surfaced in which Ronchetti was shown jokingly referring to President Trump as "the orange one.” This video was from some time back when he was still working for KRQE-TV, where he served as its chief meteorologist for many years.

Ronchetti's opponents pounced. Gavin Clarkson notified this publication and had a YouTube video up within hours, followed by TV ads.

Ronchetti Situation became Similar to the Herrell-Chase Argument: Who Likes Trump?

Clarkson was the first to put a television attack ad together on the subject, and then Martinez followed suit. With the Ronchetti video surfacing five full weeks ago, Ronchetti's opponents have had tons of time to drive home their negative message. And they have.

To be fair to Ronchetti, since he entered the senate race, he has consistently stated that he supports President Trump and his policies, but that did little to stave off the attacks. Clarkson and Martinez had picked up on lessons from the Herrell-Chase contest and had decided that—all other issues be damned—voters needed to decide the nominee on the basis of the purest and longest-lasting Trump love.

We have covered this same ridiculous "debate" before in our analysis of the CD2 GOP primary.

Readers of NMPJ know how we feel about this completely anti-intellectual, philistine, 100% lowbrow approach to political discussion and debate: We absolutely hate it. We think it is beyond ignorant and is totally demeaning to the voting public.

This is for a number of reasons. Perhaps most ironic of all—and to be fair, irony is lost on thousands of voters—Trump himself has hired his most vocal critics, including his current press secretary, who was brutal to him. At least Trump apparently recognizes that you need people of ability, even if they've made fun of you before. But what do we know?

In any case, we must ask: "Is Ronchetti strong enough to weather the storm?" His supporters think so and argue he is the strongest candidate with the most compelling message.

Anti-Ronchetti Forces in Full Attack Mode

In fairness, the anti-Ronchetti forces have been in full attack mode since he entered the race in January and long before any video surfaced. Many chalk that opposition up to jealousy on the part of Republican Party elites and insiders who felt entitled to choose the Republican nominee themselves. They were apparently very offended by the entry of an outsider like Ronchetti stealing their thunder.

Albuquerque radio talk show host Eddy Aragon (at left) began attacking Ronchetti immediately and has only grown more venomous over the past few weeks. To be fair to Aragon, last fall he said that NONE of the Republican candidates were any good—he dismissed not only Clarkson and Martinez, but also then-candidates Mick Rich and Louie Sanchez as simply not measuring up to the stature required to beat the former casino dealer Ben Ray Lujan.

And who did measure up? Well, Eddy thought it was Eddy himself. In dismissing all of the Republican candidates, he said he would actually enter the race, as his ability to articulate the issues is essentially unparalleled. However, after that announcement didn't go over that big, Aragon announced he would run as an independent.

Then that didn't go over so well either. Ultimately, he failed to file for the office in February and in a reappraisal of the situation ended up declaring that Elisa Martinez was "the one" after all, and that he was "all-in" for her.

In any case, Aragon has been attacking Ronchetti, saying he doesn't believe he is sufficiently Republican. (We know, this sounds weird coming from someone who has been, and remains, all over the map every single year, dancing from one political position to the next as often as seasons change, but we digress.)

UPDATE on Eddy: Aragon switched his endorsement from Elisa Martinez to Gavin Clarkson in May, noting that Clarkson had raised the most money and complaining that Martinez had "texted, rather than called," the one donor Aragon is influential with to ask for a contribution. We presume Eddy considered that to be "dissing" his donor, and that was just too much for him to take.

Since then, Aragon has spent the better part of this month relentlessly attacking Ronchetti on his radio show and in social media. Many dismiss Aragon as having a tiny audience, but Aragon claims to possess a megaphone capable of flipping races. He has told numerous people that he has a daily audience of many thousands.

In any case, we’ll soon find out if Aragon is as powerful with Republican primary voters as he claims, or if his megaphone is really that of a carnival barker, with an actual audience of about 150, with him going unheard by the overwhelming majority of Republican voters.

Social Media Warriors: Crusaders or Trolls?

Meanwhile, former Democrat intern and campaign volunteer John Block has emerged over the months, continuously and mercilessly attacking Ronchetti on social media. The irony of a former Martin Heinrich intern and volunteer for Mayor Tim Keller's campaign awarding himself the position of judge and jury of the conservative Republican purity test has been noted by many.

Yet, Block (shown while working on the Keller mayoral campaign) is oblivious and, with a straight face, claims to be channeling the feelings of Republican primary voters and Trump supporters. Block has gone so far as to expend funds on Facebook ads asking voters to vote against Ronchetti (this spending might raise a few eyebrows over at the Federal Elections Commission, but that’s a different subject). Again, we will find out on Tuesday if John Block is the shepherd of Trump voters like he claims.

The Money Race

To his credit, Gavin Clarkson has surprised us, raising and spending the most money of anyone in the campaign, which refutes the narrative that we had actually believed, which was that Ronchetti probably led in fundraising. Clarkson correctly pointed that out to us recently. Clarkson's latest report showed $1,088,918 raised.

Mark Ronchetti did raise an eye-popping $675,000 in his first quarter of fundraising and has continued to receive strong financial support even after the COVID-19 economic shutdown slowed fundraising for all candidates. Ronchetti’s campaign says his fundraising has been driven by thousands of small-dollar contributors who are looking for a conservative outsider. His most recent filing, however, has him at $850,343, lagging behind Clarkson by some $238,000.

As far as being outspent, the Ronchetti campaign says it is unconcerned and asserts it has been far and away the most efficient with its resources, avoiding the pitfalls that waste hudreds of thousands of dollars on consultants and vendor projects that do little to move voters.

While Elisa Martinez had been lagging behind her competitors in overall fundraising, she has received a notable boost down the stretch with the help of a maximum contribution from the husband of State Republican Party Executive Director Anissa Galassini Tinnin and a handful of other party insiders, including Mark Murphy of Roswell.

Given that infusion, we can only conclude that her recent surge is extremely strong, as she has a vastly greater statewide TV presence than either Clarkson or Ronchetti. That being the case, we would presume that her $418,554 on her last report is not reflective of how the donations will have been in May, which have to have pushed her into something on par with Ronchetti now, and possibly even close to the fundraising frontrunner Clarkson.

It is clear that the establishment elite has tried to coalesce financial support behind Martinez in the closing weeks. This has allowed Martinez to come with a huge broadcast television buy down the stretch, which as we noted earlier, attacks Ronchetti for his “orange one” joke.

This must bode ill for Ronchetti. The simple reason for that is that it would be bizarre and counter-productive for Republican Party leaders to fund an attack ad like Martinez's against someone who had increasingly been seen as the presumptive Republican nominee, UNLESS they sincerely believe the race is neck and neck and that such an ad could pull it out for Martinez.

We would further note that if that is not the case, then it would raise some extremely serious questions about their judgment and about their commitment to Republicans winning the seat in November.

Insiders Coming on Board for Martinez

House Minority Leader James Townsend

Along a similar vein, Martinez has also earned the endorsements of many political insiders, including Republican House leader James Townsend. It begs the question again why Townsend would wade into this race at this late stage, unless he believed his endorsement would sway the electorate.

Either he believes that very strongly, or he will have quite a bit of egg on his face on Tuesday. This is especially true since he is the Trump campaign chair in the state. Having the position of Trump Campaign Chair would cause most thoughtful and knowledgeable political leaders to remain strictly neutral during a primary season—in every single race—so as not to offend Republicans whose unified support they will need, and so as not to embarrass the President.

But Townsend is defying that norm, running all over the state, involving himself in every primary he can weigh in on. Of course, this is the same Townsend who is one of the architects of the devastating and historic loss, in 2018, of over one-fourth of his own caucus, while he was spending all of his time playing in a congressional race (CD2) that he also lost. So who knows?

Former Senate candidate Louie Sanchez

Another very curious development is the new role taken on by former senate candidate Louie Sanchez, who has become a very vocal supporter of Martinez and a rabid critic of Ronchetti. This has occurred since mid-March, when Sanchez dropped out of the race after he was unable to secure 20% support at the GOP state nominating convention, and after he had raised only about $50,000, while spending over $100,000 and ending up in debt.

We say this is curious for him to suddenly claim to be the voice of the Republican grassroots because Sanchez has had no involvement at all in Republican politics prior to his short-lived Senate campaign. In fact, Sanchez had never even voted in a Republican primary. So, it is very strange for him to act as though he’s been working tirelessly in the Republican trenches for decades.

Nonetheless, this hasn’t stopped Sanchez from posting shrill attacks on Facebook against Ronchetti about the need to elect “true” Republicans. Some claim this is all driven by Sanchez’s consultants who are trying to set Sanchez up to run for Governor in two years.

We see that as a plausible rationale for his advisors and handlers, however, we question the wisdom of this strategy. Rather than make a great name for Sanchez, this "strategy" seems more likely to mark Sanchez as some sort of troll and to increase the number of Sanchez detractors. In other words, his inexplicable vitriol and divisiveness could ultimately lead to a Sanchez campaign for governor being as short-lived as his ill-fated Senate bid.

Nevertheless, Sanchez is all-in with Elisa Martinez and—along with Aragon, Townsend, and other state party leaders—we’ll find out how persuasive he is with Republican voters on Tuesday, or if he’s shot himself in his other foot.

What About the Ronchetti Campaign?

For his part, as best we can tell, Ronchetti appears undaunted by the attacks and has stayed largely focused on taking his message directly to Republican voters via social media and advertising. His television and radio ads have remained positive and they have driven a conservative message with a notably and relentlessly optimistic bent.

Those positive ads stand out on airwaves that have been flooded with negativity the past few weeks. It seems to us that Ronchetti is seeking to appeal to Republican primary voters in a specific and unique way that he hopes will also attract independents and conservative Democrats.

To us, his approach has been one of textbook image-making, a candidate who is giving a positive, conservative message, while holding out the possibility of winning over voters in the fall. It's the same approach used by extremely "likable" candidates in campaigns past. Ronald Reagan comes to mind. It’s why so many Ronchetti supporters believe he is the only one capable of defeating Ben Ray Lujan in November.

It has to be said, however, that Ronchetti hasn't completely ignored his opponents. He has responded to the attacks against him in direct mail. We sift through post office trash, and we've found mail pieces in which he is pointing out that Elisa Martinez failed to pay her 2010 state income taxes for 8 years and previously worked for a liberal immigration group called the “Libre Initiative.” That group openly supported amnesty for illegal aliens.

We've also seen mail in which Ronchetti has responded to Clarkson’s attacks by pointing out how Clarkson has supported liberal candidates and causes, including attending a pipeline protest in North Dakota in 2016 with a leftwing "environmental" group.

These mailers probably represent a very small part of the Ronchetti advertising campaign, but they are great uses of resources. He is able to target likely voters with the kinds of messages they need to see about both his opponents.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming bulk of his messaging has been conducted on television, where all voters, including Democrats and independents, are watching and where everyone can get a feel for his vision. Significantly, Ronchetti doesn't even mention his opponents at all on the TV screen.

We have to admire this approach in which his negative messaging is targeted via direct mail to likely primary voters, while his TV is all positive.

But will the Ronchetti strategy of remaining positive on TV work? Or will the negative attacks of his opponents—funded and supported by party elites—seal this outsider’s fate?

We’ll find out on Tuesday evening, most likely by around 9 PM. Although, with this COVID-19 effect, the tabulating of absentee ballots may push that timeframe to 10 or even 11 PM. Who knows?

A Key Issue that—If Left Unchallenged—Will Adversely Impact the 2020 New Mexico General Election

Last month, the Democrats filed suit to try to get the Supreme Court to implement an “ALL mail-in” election for 2020.

The New Mexico Supreme Court denied the Democrats' all mail-in election idea, but instead ordered the Secretary of State (SOS) and the county clerks to mail to all “registered” voters an absentee ballot application. (Many people erroneously still believe we are having an all-mail primary, but we are not.)

The Significance of an All-Mail Election (Which Most People Still Don't Have Straight in the Minds)

If the Democrats had had their way with the Supreme Court, then every Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian would have been mailed an actual ballot—ready-to-vote—in early May. Or at least that would have been the idea. The reality, however, is that a ballot would have been mailed to every mailing address listed in the voter file.

In other words, there are no real means of ensuring that individual registered voters are actually having a ballot delivered to them. The only thing that can happen is that ballots are mailed to either a residential address where a voter says he or she gets mail, or to a Post Office box, if a voter has indicated that preference for mail delivery.

An all-mail election is particularly problematic for New Mexico because the statewide voter file is not maintained. For just one example of the bloated condition of the voter file, a recent Bernalillo County School Board election that was "all mail-in" resulted in more than 30% of the ballots being undeliverable.

All that mail was "undeliverable" because the registered voters had long since moved. And while a number of those moves may have taken place only a couple of years earlier, many of them had taken place 7 or 8 years ago, or possibly as long ago as a decade. That's how terribly inaccurate the voter file is.

We Have a Primary in Which all Eligible Voters Have Been Sent an Absentee Ballot Application

Instead of an actual votable ballot, which the Supreme Court would not allow the Democrats to mail—because the law says the SOS/Clerks cannot do that—the SOS was limited to sending out applications for a ballot. So individual voters have to decide if they want a ballot sent their way or not.

HOWEVER, MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, though she was denied the “all-mail election,” the SOS decided to seize the opportunity to unilaterally change the absentee ballot application form. On these new absentee ballot applications which you have been sent, the SOS has:

1) pre-populated every voter’s name—even though that is information which is supposed to be provided only by the voter

2) printed each voter’s unique random identification number—something no voter even knows exists, and which is also not allowed by law to be printed on the application

3) provided a bar code, so the county clerks can scan the applications when they come back in—which is also not permitted by law to be printed on an application, much less a ballot

Our Election Code very clearly provides that an application shall be designed so that spaces are provided in which the name, registration address, and the year of birth can be filled in. However, it is also clear that all of that information is "to be supplied by the applicant." (§ 1-6-4 (B))

What Can be done with this Unauthorized Information on the (previously blank) Form?

Anyone—any candidate, individual, party organization, or special interest group—who can purchase a statewide voter file, can simply filter the unique voter identification numbers provided by the SOS and immediately have the means of filling in the registration address and year of birth—to go with the voter’s pre-printed name, which the SOS has furnished.

At that point, anyone in possession of these applications has had the ability to send in a perfectly valid request for an absentee ballot. And the additional bar code will make for immediate processing. In fact, the bar codes—now supplied on ballot outer envelopes as well—actually encourage the elimination of any kind of manual verification of data.

Danger Lies Ahead

While the implications for the primary are relatively insignificant (after all it’s only D v. D and R v. R), the groundwork is clearly being laid for this same process to be used in the General Election. And the potential for misuse/fraud in absentee balloting is very clear: with some 30% of our statewide voter file completely out of date, hundreds of thousands, perhaps 350,000-400,000 of our 1.3 million registered voters, will not be at the address to which these applications will be delivered.

The presence of upwards of 400,000 absentee ballot applications with names already printed on them, with unique identifiers on them, and with bar codes for easy processing on them presents an enormous opportunity for the mail-in of thousands of completed applications that may be completed by someone other than the actual voter who is supposed to cast the vote.

Groups with questionable reputations, like the infamous ACORN (now disbanded) and its successor organizations like OLÉ (which is very active in New Mexico), are specially positioned and suited—due to their experience and practice (discussed below)—to take enormous advantage of the information provided in the new unlawful absentee ballot applications.

In other words, ballot harvesting has just been made vastly simpler and less time-consuming for any group willing to participate. And in New Mexico, those groups are more than willing to participate.

Many people are calling us, telling us their views that the Rio Grande Foundation, a tax-exempt, so-called "non-profit" organization, which styles itself as a "think tank," has begun to get way out over its skis. One caller told us she had just "un-liked" the RGF Facebook page over its extreme meddling in Republican primaries, as well as its gross misrepresentation of issues to the voters.

We have to say that we can see where the RGF's lecturing to conservatives about "just how the cow eats the cabbage" can become not only tiresome, but downright irritating. This is especially true for those voters who really understand conservatism and the myriad differences between conservatism (which is not an ideology) and libertarianism (which is an ideology).

One thing Republican voters, especially conservative Republican primary voters—everywhere, not just in New Mexico—must keep in mind, is that the Rio Grande Foundation is NOT a conservative organization—not by a long shot. Not even close. It has always been oriented toward libertarian politics, featuring programs and guest speakers who promote the thinking of the famous Ayn Rand. Rand, unlike conservatives, was an avowed atheist.

As for its recent activities in New Mexico Republican primaries, "weighing in" is what the group calls it. It's their euphemism for "taking sides." And that's a risky thing for an organization that lives off its tax-exempt, special protections that most Americans do not enjoy.

Libertarians (Rio Grande Foundation) v. Conservatives: What are the Differences?

It is true that there are some similarities between conservatives and libertarians. They both believe strongly in individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. So many times those shared views can lead to cooperation on a number of public policy issues.

However, there are also stark differences on matters such as national defense, the armed forces, foreign policy, immigration—including illegal immigration—the death penalty, drugs (and across the board drug legalization), surveillance, marriage and the family, and the ability of individuals to express their faith, including the recognition of the role of religion in our nation's history, as well as its influence on public policy.

Here are just a few of the issues of the day, and where libertarians and conservatives line up on each:

Issue libertariansconservatives

Taxation Oppose increased taxes Oppose increased taxes

Immigration Oppose Restrictions Believe in Restrictions and limits

Illegal Immigration Support Open Borders (liberty) Strongly Oppose, must have control of borders

Legalization of hard drugs Support legalization of practically all drugs (liberty) Oppose

Recreational Marijuana Support Many conservatives support, many oppose

Medical marijuana Support Most support, minority opposed

Death Penalty Oppose (they believe it comes from "religion" Support (though not all conservatives do)

Marriage Support for any persons who "love" each other Tend to support "traditional" marriage

Gun Rights Support the Second Amendment Support the Second Amendment

Religious Expression Emphasize the "establishment" clause Emphasize both "establishment" and

"free exercise" clauses

Gender Support "liberty" ("however many there are") Believe in two basic, biological sexes

Libertarianism shares a number of public policy positions that are supported by traditional conservatives. But these tend to be related to economics and taxation. With regard to social and cultural issues, libertarians tend to be much more aligned with liberals and the modern Left.

Libertarianism sees itself as being a political ideology that asserts the natural order of things is total liberty. As one example of this ideology, it embraces the view that a woman, for example, has "total control" of her own body and therefore can do whatever she wants with a fetus, up to and including the ultimate stage of birth.

Conservatives, on the other hand, would argue that a fetus is not merely an organic "part" of a woman's body—much like a kidney, gall bladder, or spleen—which can and should be dispensed with in whatever manner she chooses. Rather, they would argue that a fetus is a separate, living entity, and not merely an incidental body part.

Libertarian RGF Butts in on the Senate District 41 Race: David Gallegos v. Gregg Fulfer

Yesterday, the Rio Grande Foundation butted in to the campaign for State Senate District 41, by siding with current Representative David Gallegos.

Gallegos, with or without the active assistance and encouragement of the RGF (and that is unclear) has weaponized a so-called "Freedom Index" published by the RGF. Gallegos touts his "rating" on this index as some sort of proof of his suitability to represent a very conservative district in Lea and Eddy Counties.

However, as discussed above, the question arises: Are folks in southeastern New Mexico really libertarians? Or are they traditional conservatives? What is the relative level of church attendance there compared with Albuquerque? Or with Santa Fe—which is now dominated by recent arrived ultra-secular Anglos from the East and West Coasts.

Do folks in Lea County really want to see their political views judged by a marker established by the atheist Ayn Rand? We sort of doubt that.

For the more educated and informed Republican primary voters, Gallegos's desire to be judged "libertarian" as opposed to conservative, seems to very much put him at odds with the overwhelming philosophical majority of the district.

The Most Conservative Senators and Representatives have very little Respect for the RGF

The most conservative senators and state reps in New Mexico have been highly critical of the Rio Grande Foundation indexes, calling them, among an array of negative descriptions, "flaky," and "just so much bullsh-t." A group of a half dozen senators interviewed during the most recent legislative session said that there's "no comparison" between the highly respected American Conservative Union (ACU) ratings and the RGF ratings.

Here are some of their opinions:

"You've got be kidding me. The Rio Grande Foundation can't even decide from one minute to the next what its "important votes" are.

"They change the criteria three times during a session, publishing updated and altered issues."

"Then they 'weight' certain issues, arbitrarily assigning 2 points, 6 points, or 8 points here and there, then raising or lowering them after they've published their criteria."

"It's very flaky."

"It's they may be trying to get a certain end result for some senators, and they have to go back and tinker with their ratings to make sure that result is what they get."

"You can't trust it."

"Besides, they're libertarian, not conservative."

Yesterday, we presented those criticisms to Rio Grande Foundation President Paul Gessing, and much to our surprise, he very forthrightly and straightforwardly owned them and confirmed them.

"Yeah, it is a valid concern or criticism. During the session, yeah, we had to, we have somebody managing the site, it's a fast-moving process, and yeah, the initial weight during the session is not always where it ends up.

As much as RGF is to be commended for being honest about its flakiness in the ratings, it nonetheless reconfirms the near uselessness of constantly changing and arbitrarily assigned "importance" and "points" that don't get decided until AFTER all the votes are lined up.

The charge that the "index" is being manipulated to conform to pre-determined desired outcomes has to be taken seriously.

Then there's the fact that none of the conservatives even want to be considered a "libertarian" anyway.

For the well-read, thoughtful conservative Republican, especially those who have at least some belief in God—and very much so for the serious Evangelical or Roman Catholic—the "libertarian" road is not one they want to travel. And they vastly prefer a conservative to represent them.

All around the state, dark money operatives are going overboard to win elections, breaking all precedent in terms of outrageous claims and slanders against their targeted enemies—and those "enemies" always turn out to be the most conservative, common-sense candidates in the contests.

Senate District 41 in the far southeast corner of the state is no exception. In a district that consists of the southern halves of both Eddy and Lea Counties, incumbent Republican State Representative David Gallegos is challenging incumbent Republican State Senator Gregg Fulfer.

Gallegos has come under some criticism for making the race, considering that Republicans hold precious few seats in either house, and that many rank-and-file Republicans believe precious and scarce campaign funds should be directed at unseating Democrats rather than spent to merely satisfy personal ambitions about moving to the upper house.

Gallegos Announces His Motives—And they Aren't Pretty

On March 1st in the Hobbs News-Sun, Gallegos began his campaign by telling voters that he was motivated by anger at not being chosen to replace retiring Senator Carroll Leavell, 17 months ago. In his full-page ad, Gallegos described the Lea and Eddy County Commissioners as criminals for not selecting him, accusing them of violating the law, engaging in backroom deals and dishonest, secret plots.

What was the reason for those charges? Gallegos had been sending out emails for several months, essentially telling anyone who would listen that it was time for Senator Leavell to step down. And in those same emails, Gallegos was lobbying hard to have himself appointed to replace the 82-year-old senator.

So when the Eddy and Lea County Commissions voted, 3 to 2 and 4 to 1 respectively, to appoint Gregg Fulfer, the only thing Gallegos could conclude was that the county commissioners must have committed some sort of criminal act. At least that's what his allegations amount to.

In addition to these reasons for being motivated to run, Gallegos also said on Facebook that he wanted to have "a four-year term rather than just a two-year term."

As far as we know, none of the commissioners Gallegos has accused of crimes has turned out to be enthusiastic about his candidacy.

Unprecedented Tactics

Fulfer ran a very positive campaign throughout April and early May, with very little being heard from Gallegos. Then Gallegos suddenly struck on radio, in mail pieces, and in newspapers, attacking Fulfer in very vicious terms, accusing him of being every possible negative descriptive they can invent.

Gallegos has repeatedly attacked Fulfer for being a "lifelong Democrat" who supposedly changed his party affiliation "just before" his appointment. This is weird because both Gallegos and Fulfer have been Democrats most of their lives. Gallegos changed his registration a few years ago and Fulfer changed five years ago—long before his appointment.

A Federal PAC is Now Smearing Fulfer—And it's a PAC that has Joined Forces with Democrats

In recent days, a PAC headed up by a pro-abortion political operative who has strongly supported Democrats in the past, has jumped into the race with a smear campaign against Fulfer. The same organization, using radio and TV ads produced by a couple of anti-conservative Republican operatives in Austin, Texas, has been deeply involved in smear campaigns against conservative Republicans in the past.

Even though Fulfer is the only candidate in the race who has opposed Governor Lujan Grisham on all of her extreme issues, this PAC accuses Fulfer of being an ally of Grisham.

According to one observer, "one dead giveaway in the ad is that John Billingsley is the only person we know who would spell oil with two Ls."

Ironically, considering their smears against Fulfer, this same PAC is working alongside the progressive Democrat PAC, Patriot Majority, as both of them are engaged in smearing Republican Claire Chase on behalf of Yvette Herrell—trying to persuade Republicans to nominate the weakest candidate, so that the Democrat can prevail in the general election.

Though this PAC which is now attacking Fulfer has nothing to do with Trump, and in fact goes against Trump ideas, the men behind the group chose to disguise their goals by naming themselves "Make NM Great PAC." The PAC is not registered in New Mexico, even though New Mexico law explicitly states that it must do so:

"If a political committee is located in New Mexico, and is required to register as a political committee under this rule, the political committee must register with the secretary of state even if it is also registered with the FEC."

—New Mexico Administrative Rule 1.10.13.10 (A) (4)

So in addition to blatantly false attacks on Fulfer, this deep-secret PAC is also violating New Mexico law in that it is not registered at all and is not filing campaign finance reports of contributions and expenditures.

Gallegos Using Campaign Funds Inappropriately

A New Mexico registered campaign committee called "Committee to Drain the Swamp" is running radio ads and sending out mail exposing Gallegos' use of his campaign donations. Gallegos has filed campaign finance reports using such terms as "reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses." Such line items are not allowed under New Mexico law.

Gallegos has apparently "reimbursed" himself or his wife for "expenses" by paying off credit card charges.

Some of the entries state they that the "reimbursements" are for "campaign expenses" (which are not itemized or described) while some claim to be reimbursements for such things as "signs" or "materials."

In any case, even if all the entries happened to be truthful or accurate, such accounting is not allowable under New Mexico law.

Altogether, Gallegos has used some $38,000 of campaign funds in this manner.

What has become the most important issue for Republican primary candidates running in Congressional District 2 or in the US Senate Primary?

If you're thinking how to deal with the COVID-19 plague, you're wrong. If you think it has anything at all to do with rebuilding the economy you're also wrong. You're also wrong if you think the top issue is healthcare, or international trade deals, or China, or Russia, or border security, or the Middle East, or most anything else you're likely to think up.

No. Believe it or not, the top issue is "When did you first love Trump?"

Or on what date can a forensic investigation determine when you first said something negative about Trump?

And then at what point can detectives determine when you subsequently had your "conversion experience" that was sufficiently satisfactory to prove to investigators that you are now in the Trump fold?

How many professions of faith in Trump can dance on the head of a pin?

We are not making this up. For CD 2, it's all about whether Claire Chase or Yvette Herrell supported other presidential candidates in 2015 and 2016—and what was their attitude toward Donald J. Trump four to five years ago.

For US Senate hopefuls Elisa Martinez and Gavin Clarkson, it's their whole campaign: Did Mark Ronchetti make a joke about being anti-Trump?

Yeah, he did. Like millions of Republicans—even millions of Republicans who voted for him and who are going to vote for him again.

NEWS BULLETIN: Millions of Republicans—including Republicans who are his strongest supporters—make fun of Trump every single day!

As Seinfeld's Frank Costanza would say: "What the hell does that mean?" Answer: Not a damn thing.

Five years ago, Kayleigh McEnany called Trump a "racist" and a "showman" who was an embarrassment and "not a serious candidate." Today, she is his press secretary, the spokesperson FOR TRUMP himself!

This is proof positive that the Trump Administration is not following the Elisa-Gavin-Yvette-Claire logic, but instead is using the following kind of logic:

It's not what you thought of Trump five years ago, it's whether or not you support his policies today or believe that his administration has been successful.

But getting back to New Mexico. How's the Trump Administration logic playing in the Land of Enchantment?

Answer: It isn't playing at all. It hasn't cracked the Billboard top 100. Nobody is listening to it.

Yvette Herrell and Claire Chase are beating each other senseless over which one of them made a profession of faith in Trump the earliest.

Why does Trump himself and why do his handlers understand that the New Mexico "logic" makes no Sense?

Because if you actually believe the allegations made and the questions posed by the New Mexico candidates you have to disqualify far more than half of the Americans who ended up voting for Trump over Hillary Clinton. That's right, after all was said and done in the GOP nominating process in 2016, more than 55% of Republicans wanted someone other than Trump.

Does that mean that Trump needs to rail against them, holding a grudge over that? Or are the Trump advisors smart enough to realize that what is important is that the voters who supported Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Ben Carson, and a dozen other Republicans turned around and voted for Trump in the general election?

We think they get that. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton would be president. And if they didn't get it, they'd be headed for certain defeat this November.

But do GOP candidates in New Mexico get it? And more important, do New Mexico Republican voters get it? Answer: We won't know until about 10 PM on Tuesday, June 2nd.

But Wait, HERE COME THE DEMOCRATS

One group of people who are loving all of this is the Democrat Party brain trust, laughing their butts off at the nonsense. It's so damn funny to them that they have begun running ads on behalf of Yvette Herrell.

They are openly reinforcing the message offered by Herrell, which is: 1) do NOT vote based on each candidate's position on crucial issues, or 2) each candidate's ability to appeal to the general election, or 3) a candidate's ability to stand and deliver in debate, or 4) articulate the conservative argument, or 5) make the case for something better than Xochitl Torres Small, or 6) raise money, or 7) broaden the appeal of the Republican message, or 8) who has the greater winnability quotient?

No. None of that. The Democrats are copying the exact message of Herrell (and Clarkson and Elisa Martinez): any Republican who has not been continuously in love with Trump for five years is a bad candidate.

Think about it. If the Democrats are pushing that same "reasoning" process, how smart is it really?

Will Republicans get it? As our previous article showed, they have a habit of not getting it.

Pulling a familiar trick out of the Democrat Party playbook, a Leftist/liberal SuperPAC has now jumped into the middle of the Republican primary in New Mexico’s Second Congressional District.

Patriot Majority PAC, which is famous for supporting Barack Obama, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Harry Reid, began airing television commercials today (Saturday, May 23rd) attacking Republican Claire Chase, while praising former Republican state representative Yvette Herrell.

This is exactly the tactic Democrats have used successfully in recent years. Here are two examples:

Nevada, 2010, Senate Race

Then-Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid was losing very badly in head-to-head polling against Republican Sue Lowden. And his campaign wasn’t making any headway either.

So he came up with the plan of promoting the weakest Republican, a former state representative* by the name of Sharron Angle, who, unfortunately for Republicans, couldn’t string two sentences together.

By wildly exaggerating Angle’s abilities and “conservative” bona fides, Reid and Patriot Majority PAC easily fooled all the Tea Party types in Nevada and also sparked the interest of Club for Growth, which weighed in enthusiastically (though cluelessly) for Angle. ?

At the same time, Patriot Majority relentlessly attacked Lowden, making her out to be a “liberal,” thus doubly deceiving the Tea Party faithful.

Angle won the primary. And Reid had successfully secured the Republican opponent of his choice. With Angle unable to debate, or form coherent sentences, her staff spent the last two months of the campaign shuffling her through airports and other public areas—keeping reporters and news cameras at a “social distance.”

That didn’t help. The general election ended up being a walkover for Reid.

Missouri, 2012, Senate Race

Incumbent Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill faced exactly the same problem as Reid had faced: She was headed for defeat against either of two leading Missouri Republicans. So she took a page out of Reid’s playbook and began spending money to support the third Republican, Todd Akin.

In this article: https://politi.co/2zZUzNp, which she titled "How I Helped Todd Akin Win—So I Could Beat Him Later,"McCaskill brags about the plan she came up with to spend $1.7 million to tear down the strong Republicans and boost the weak one. That figure represents almost seven times what Akin spent on his own campaign.

Again, Tea Party and Club for Growth people were fooled, Mike Huckabee got excited about all the great things that were being said about Akin and against Akin's opponents (not knowing that all that noise was coming from McCaskill) so Huckabee got on board with Akin.

Akin won the primary, 36-30-29, over the two Republicans who had been poised to crush McCaskill. Then Akin had his very predictable meltdown: He announced that it’s not really possible for a woman to get pregnant from a rape—provided it’s a “legitimate” rape.

From that point on, he was toast. McCaskill won the general election in an enormous landslide. And the Democrats had held another seat they didn't deserve to have.

New Mexico, CD 2, 2020

Fast forward to today. The Associated Press reports that:

"Spending reports reviewed by The Associated Press show that Patriot Majority PAC bought nearly $200,000 of ads to influence Republican voters in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District primary on June 2."

Yes, that's the same outfit that has tried to (successfully) get Republican voters to pick the weakest candidate all around the country. The AP said:

"The Center for Public Integrity said Patriot Majority PAC was founded by veteran Democratic Party operative Craig Varoga in 2009 to support Democratic candidates."

This clearly indicates that Democratic Party polling shows that Chase is ahead of incumbent Democrat Xochitl Torres Small and that Yvette Herrell is running behind Torres Small. Small defeated Herrell by close to 4,000 votes in 2018. It was an open seat then, and it had just been won by a Republican in 2016 by more than 24 points.

Now, Small is the incumbent. It has seemed difficult for Republicans to find a path for Herrell to win a race in 2020 as a challenger that she couldn't win as the "virtual" incumbent just two years earlier.

The Democrats' ad says:

"There’s Santa Fe lobbyist Claire Chase who opposed President Trump, calling him an (expletive) unworthy of the office,”

Then, while pictures of Chase are shown on the screen, the voiceover intones:

Right. But "better choice" for whom? Since the Democrats are producing the ads and paying for them to go on the air, they probably mean that Herrell is the "better choice" for them. Not for the Republicans' chances in November.

The bottom line is this: Will Republicans be so easily fooled as they have been in years past in similar circumstances.

We don't know. But we do know that State GOP Chairman Steve Pearce and his staff are pulling out all the stops for Herrell. While they're doing that, it certainly appears that they are playing right into the Democrats' hands.

It appears any pretense that the Republican Party of New Mexico might actually adhere to party rules and remain neutral in various primaries around the state, has been lost.

Everywhere we look, Pearce appears to have deeply embedded himself—and his Sancho Panza-like Executive Director Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin—in Republican primary campaign after campaign. Sidekick John Billingsley also shows up everywhere with "contributions" and verbal support for the Pearce team, in opposition to those Republican conservatives who are even more conservative than Pearce himself, but who will not join the Pearce personality cult, pledging total fealty to Pearce and the odd team of email thieves he's surrounded himself with.

After all, shouldn't the state party focus on winning more Republican seats? Instead of creating more life-long intraparty disputes and squabbles? Just so Pearce and Tinnin can maintain an up-to-date "enemies list" for themselves?

To us at least, all of their machinations, picking favorites, and endless scheming seem pointless and destructive.

Yesterday we learned that Tom Tinnin (recently married to the RPNM Executive Director) had donated $2,500 to US Senate hopeful Elisa Martinez. Reports recently made public establish that Anissa's mother, Rocky Galassini, filed with the Federal Elections Commission as the registered Custodian of Records for the Yvette Herrell campaign. Philip Pearce, Steve Pearce's brother, is the Herrell's campaign treasurer.

All of this kind of interference while simultaneously insisting that what we are seeing with our own eyes—improper meddling by the state party in Republican primary contests—is not really what we are seeing. And the kicker is that they expect us to believe that.

Lea and Eddy Counties

Everyone in Lea and Eddy Counties has complained about Pearce's takeover last winter of the Lea County Republican Convention, and his near-takeover in Eddy County. His purpose was to ensure that all state convention delegates in both counties would support Herrell over Claire Chase.

In both instances, Pearce pushed out (or in Eddy County, attempted to push out) long-time activists and volunteers and imposed a group he had gathered up. One Lea County Republican stalwart told us: "Steve showed up with about a hundred people we had never seen or heard of before, and never will see or hear from again."

In Lea County, numerous political observers state that it was Pearce who recruited, or strongly encouraged, incumbent State Representative David Gallegos to challenge incumbent Republican Senator Gregg Fulfer. This of course has resulted in an extremely expensive primary battle that in the end will probably have cost Republicans hundred of thousands of dollars. That is money that could have been used to take on sitting Democrats.

According to our sources:

"Steve would rather have folks on 'his team' or his own 'devoted followers' in office, even if the sitting Republican is a strong conservative and doing a good job."

This is certainly the case in State Senate District 41, where incumbent Gregg Fulfer is endorsed by the National Rifle Association, recommended by Right-to-Life, has continuously battled Governor Lujan-Grisham, and has the endorsements of such stalwarts as Eddy County Sheriff Mark Cage—one of the most vocal and influential conservatives in the state.

Fulfer also did something no first-year legislator has been able to do: he got $350 million to four-lane the state's most dangerous roads, and make huge improvements on US 285. (Gallegos, oddly, we are told, actually voted against that funding.)

Tuesday, Sheriff Mark Cage announced that he has withdrawn his earlier endorsement of Yvette Herrell. Cage endorsed Herrell when she was the only candidate in the race.* Cage had this to say about his earlier endorsement and his change of view:

“Unfortunately, the latest very personal, very ugly attacks on my friend Claire Chase have driven me to do otherwise...”

Herrell has faced tremendous criticism for her part in a sordid political affair involving a cartoonist, with whom she exchanged text messages about creating a meme that would promote false rumors about her opponent Claire Chase—implying that she had cheated on her first husband. The rumors weren't true, but text messages obtained by The Associated Press showed that Herrell was busy offering suggestions to build and embellish the meme.

Cage's support of Fulfer could have something to do with the incredibly nasty ads being run by Gallegos—apparently all of which are untrue. Gallegos is said to be using the same Washinton, DC-based consulting groups that Pearce is said to have lined up behind Herrell. Both groups have run demonstrably false ads, angering many people in Southeastern New Mexico.

National Issues

2016 Presidential Campaign - Democrats

2016 Presidential Campaign - Republicans

Jeb Bush gets religion.

"They said he got religion at the end, and I'm glad that he did." — Tom T. Hall. The Year Clayton Delaney died.

Well, it's official. Jeb Bush has changed quite of few of his positions on illegal immigration. The single most significant is that he no longer endorses the "path to citizenship" for those who came here illegally.

This is, after all, the key portion of any proposal aimed at "reforming" our existing illegal immigration situation.

No sensible citizen can see any point in trying to deport between 12 and 16 million people currently living in America illegally. And no candidate for any office that we know of supports that. What the average American wants is for the country to "get a handle on it." They want it stopped, our borders secured and future illegal immigration prevented. It is a national security issue.

The Path to Legal Status

The only way to accomplish the above goals, is to identify current illegal immigrants, get them accounted for, have them documented, and placed on a path to legal status. Neither they nor their children or spouses should live in a state of fear or anxiety.

But a path to "citizenship" is not the right course. It is not morally or legally correct. A merciful and compassionate nation can provide the safeguards of legal status without sending the message to the rest of the world that all you have to do is cross our border and you will eventually get to become a citizen, thus circumventing the legal framework scores of millions of Americans have followed, honored and respected.

If someone who is granted legal status eventually wants to become a citizen, that person should have to return to his or her country of origin and wait in line like 20 million people around the world are doing at any given time. Failing that, America will forever send the signal that anyone in the world can "jump the line," and that there is no reason at all to obey our immigration and naturalization laws.

We Like Jeb Bush

We are glad Jeb Bush has learned this lesson. He is a fine speaker, and can eloquently explain his positions on complex issue. If he were not named "Bush" he would be an actual top tier candidate—in all that that title would entail, including likelihood of acceptance and support of and from the American people in the primaries, and in any theoretical general election.

We also recognize that he already is a de facto top-tier candidate because of his fame and his fundraising.

If he were to be the nominee of the Republican Party we would heartily support him and endorse him. We hope, however, that he is not, as he does not give the center-right coalition the best chance of winning.

Media Watch

County Government News

Cities, Towns and Villages

Judicial Watch

Movies, Television, Pop Culture

Selma ?????
We have now seen the Oscar-nominated movie Selma. Our earlier allusion to criticism that sounded as though it was in an Oliver Stone category for historical fabrication is some...

Sports

The Major League Baseball Playoffs are not realistic, and destroy the actual meaning of the sport.

Major League Baseball is unique in this respect—its postseason is markedly different from the way the game is played normally. No other major league sport suffers from this flaw.

Not that much is wrong with baseball. In some respects it's the most well thought-out sport there is. The "perfect game" many aficionados say.

But the Major League Baseball postseason experience is unique in the world of professional sports, and not in a good way.

In fact the playoffs are flawed in such a way as to detract from the sport itself and diminish the game and what it means to be the world champion of the sport.

Among the Big Four team sports of North America: football, hockey, basketball and baseball—and all the 122 professional major league teams competing in the NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB respectively—it is in baseball alone that the postseason turns the sport itself on its head and makes it reflect something that it is not. This article will explain why that happens and why it is wrong-headed.

Background on the The Frequency of Play

The 30 teams in both the National Hockey League and the National Basketball Association teams play a very similar schedule. On average, each team has a day off between games, sometimes two days off. Though there are back-to-back games, they are relatively infrequent. NBA teams play between 14 and 22 back-to-back games a season, and for the NHL it usually ranges between 9 and 19. The NFL has a full week between games, the exception being the new Thursday games that each team plays once, leaving them only four days' rest once a year.

But baseball players play every single day. Ten days straight, then a day off, then seven more games, then a day off, then ten more games. Typically a baseball team plays 27 games every 30 days. For the NHL and NBA it would be 14 per month, and for the NFL the number would be 4.

Getting to the Playoffs: It's a grind

In all four sports, getting to the postseason requires a total team effort—in fact an all-out total organizational effort. Teams must be deep, have bench strength and the capability of moving players in and out of the lineup, and on and off the roster, who can take the place of key players who go down for an injury, or who have to miss games for whatever reason. While this is true of the other three major sports as well, it is most certainly even more of a concern for baseball teams because of the sheer volume of games in which a team must field a competitive lineup.

Each league's regular season* is a marathon, not a sprint. NFL teams play for 17 weeks, 16 games. The NHL has an 82-game season over six months, paralleled by an NBA season of 84 games over the same timeframe. Baseball is the biggest marathon of all—a true test of resilience and endurance—162 games usually starting around the beginning of April and finishing about the end of September.

NHL teams carry 23-man rosters, of which 20 can be active for any particular game. The NBA is similar, with 15-man rosters of which 13 can be on the bench for a given game. In the NFL, the teams have 53 players on a roster, but only 46 can suit up on game day. In Major League Baseball, teams have a 25-man active roster, and all 25 are at the park every day.

The Postseason Playoffs: Sport by Sport

The National Football League:

Of the 32 teams, 12 qualify for the playoffs. The playoffs are conducted in the exact same manner as the regular season. Each team plays once a week, the exception being that the four top teams get the first week off. For a typical qualifier to reach the Super Bowl, the team must play three consecutive weeks. At that point both remaining teams have two weeks off before the Super Bowl.

In short, the playoffs, with a game each week, reflects the same means of advancement as is present in regular season grind.

The National Hockey League:

16 of the 30 teams qualify for the postseason. The playoffs are conducted in the exact same manner as the regular season: a game, a day off, a game, a day off, a game, a day off, and so on. Just as in the regular season, there are occasionally two days off. But the playoffs require the same stamina, the same approach as that required to make the playoffs.

The National Basketball Association

16 of the 30 teams qualify for the postseason. The playoffs are conducted in the exact same manner as the regular season: a game, a day off, a game, a day off, a game, a day off, and so on. Just as in the regular season, there are occasionally two days off. But the playoffs require the same stamina, the same approach as that required to make the playoffs.

Major League Baseball

10 of the 30 teams qualify for the postseason. (Although four of those teams qualify only for a one-game do-or-die play-in game.)

Here is where all similarity to baseball ends.

Unlike the other three sports whose playoffs mirror the test of the regular season, and whose conditions are the same as the regular season, Major League Baseball playoffs in no way resemble the sport itself. In hockey, basketball and football, the teams win playoff games and reach the pinacle of the sport in exactly the same way that they qualify to try to do so.

Not so in baseball. They are two entirely different concepts. Teams make the playoffs only because they have depth, five-man pitching rotations and can play day-in and day-out at a high level. But the baseball playoffs suddenly become a kind of "all-star" game within each team's roster. MLB playoffs are conducted in a way that more closely follows the NBA and the NHL. Teams have enormous numbers of days off.

Here's the key point: No Major League Baseball team could even qualify for the postseason if they played the same way during the regular season that they do in the playoffs. None.

In the regular season Major League Baseball teams have to use a 5-man starting rotation, with pitchers pitching every 5th day. There are not enough days off to have even a four-man rotation, let alone a team with three pitchers. Even the best team in baseball using only a 4-man rotation, would wear them out, and most likely end up with a record of something like 66-96, or 70-92—and that would be if they were otherwise teh best team in the sport.

The 2014 Baseball Postseason is Typical

As examples, last year's World Series teams the Kansas City Royals played only 15 games in 30 days, and the San Francisco Giants played only 17 games in 30 days. The 12 to 15 days off in the non-baseball fantasy world of the MLB postseason, means that teams can turn to three pitchers and give all of them plenty of rest. But it isn't the way baseball really works.

At one point, the Royals had 5 consecutive days off, and the Giants had 4. This never happens in the regular season.Even the All-Star break is only three days. Very rarely is there anything beyond a one-day break, and even that happens only a couple of times a month.

What this means is that neither team used the team that got them to the playoffs. (The NFL, NBA and NHL teams ALL used the very same teams that got them to the playoffs.)

Baseball teams use a three-man pitching rotation in the playoffs. Sometimes, they essentially opt for two pitchers only—conceding the likelihood that some of their games are going to be lost—when their third-, or rarely fourth-best pitcher has to face one of their opponents' two-man or three-man rotation members.

Imagine an NFL team using only one running back and three wide receivers, instead of rotating through their roster in the course of a playoff game—or using only 4 defensive backs and 4 linebackers, instead of rotating 8 or 9 DBs and 6 or 7 linebackers? In hockey, would a team use only two or three of their forward lines? Would an NBA team use only the starting five? They would never make the post season if they tried to present that product to their fans during the regular season.

Those are the equivalents of what Major League Baseball sets up every fall. No other sport drags its playoffs out in such a way as to completely change the playing field—completely change the dynamics of its game.

Why Does Baseball Do This?

MLB does this because the TV networks want to drag out the games so that they can try to have one game each day This requires an unnecessary staggering of games, and creates the phenomenon of 15 off-days in a month.

What about travel days?

What about them? Baseball has travel days constantly. A team may play in Chicago one day and in Miami the next, or in New York one day and Phoenix the very next day. Travel days as a routine part of the game are again, a phenomenon of television, and stretching out the playoffs.

In years past, travel days were employed only when necessary. The famous "subway series" games were played on seven consecutive days. Why? Because there was no "travel day" required to go from Brooklyn to the Bronx. Today, they would put in artificial travel days.

Even fairly long train trips didn't necessarily matter. The 1948 World Series between the Cleveland Indians and the Boston Braves was played in six consecutive days, October 6 & 7 in Boston, October 8, 9 & 10 in Cleveland, and October 11 back in Boston.

This reflects actual baseball, the way the teams play day-in and day-out, and the kind of unique test that baseball presents to its athletes, its managers and management, and to its fans.

In the modern world of charter planes, teams fly from coast to coast to play games on consecutive days. The artificial "travel day" should be eliminated so that teams can play in the playoffs in the same way that got them there in the first place.

*All these leagues also have pre-seasons and training camps, which add an additional 6-8 weeks to each player's year.